Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: UNESCO Biosphere reserve established in 1977 18,200 hectares - no useful information on the UNESCO site. Not a KBA
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:Although small, at 17, 176 hectares, it is a global biosphere reserve, and does appear to have some significance with species range-size rarity.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Irrecoverable Carbon map
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:According to the UN Biodiversity Lab, the area has a moderate density of soil above ground carbon, on average above 100t/ha. Irrecoverable carbon appears to be slightly over 50.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: There does not appear to be any active management of the biosphere reserve.
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:This is only marginally explained in the proposal. There is little evidence in the ICI portal.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: Basic description of uses of the biosphere reserve
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:There is some discussion of traditional materials, fish and other products, but the cultural significance is not clearly spelled out.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Impossible to assess the level of threat but assumed moderate
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The area faces very high deforestation rates
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: No information provided to make this assessment
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:There is very little evidence in the proposal; treatment of sections 4 and 5 is cursory.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: No information provided to make this assessment
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:As noted in the data, although the law in CAR allows for community conservation and governance, according to Landmark, 82 % of customarily-administered lands have yet to be recognized. This appears to be the case in this proposal.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: No information provided to make this assessment
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:There is little evidence demonstrated in the proposal.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: Degraded forest restoration project by FAO funded by GEF
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:These were not evidenced in the proposal, simply a vaguely related FAO project.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: Vague description of land management and management of degraded mining areas, and planting of fast growing tree species.
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The project is aligned, focusing on improved management of natural resources. However, the focus on rights and tenure appears to be relatively weak.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: Plant fast growing trees with no sense of who will do this and how
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:Activities are well defined, with a clear focus on agroforestry, non-timber forest products, and clearly identifying specific products and their benefits. However, the level of detail was not sufficient to merit a higher score.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: No planting trees will not stop mining, logging, slash and burn farming, and loss of cultural identity
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The proposal addresses sustainable management, but does not clearly address underlying threats, land tenure issues.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: No idea
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:It is not clear that this project has the capacity to manage a budget of this size, or achieve the objectives within the time period.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: None
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:Although agencies are listed as potential sources of co-finance, nothing firm is specified.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: Not provided
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The area is about 17K hectares.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: Unlikely
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:Although these are included in the proposal, there is scant description or evidence, with no indicators.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: Products sold from the fast growing trees will keep the project going
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:Little to no text is provided on long-term sustainability.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: No
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:Yes, the NBSAP and the NDC both mention agroforestry and related issues.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: Says women will be involved during design and implementation of project
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:Gender mainstreaming is all but absent in this proposal.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: None
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:It is unclear how this initiative could be scaled up. There is little to no reference to replication in the proposal.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: It does not appear to be and no IPLCs are mentioned explicitly in the proposal. On the Moboma community as beneficiaries
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:This appears to be focused on IPLCs being solely beneficiaries.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: None demonstrated
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:This appears to be focused on IPLCs being solely beneficiaries.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: Vaguely says the Moboma community
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The roles of IPLCs are not specified in the proposal.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: REPALCA was a client of a training NGO Well Grounded but this EOI provides no evidence of their capacity. They report have skills in community training, enterprise development and documenting human rights violations.
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The proposal lists capacities without providing any qualifying information or futher evidence.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: They report having an accountant. But do not report prior project funding.
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The organization has experience executing grants, has diversified funding streams and is competent with audits and reports, although not larger than 200K.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: They say they use the procedures of FPP (Forest Peoples Programme) COMIFAC and Work Bank
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The project sites safeguard experience with World Bank and other institutions.